New Tactic Proposal for Dealing with Out of Control Churches

[liberaltexas]

All, what do you think about the idea that churches that engage in political campaigning are effectively PACS.

Especially one like the NC church that excommunicated it's liberals.

I'd say that any preacher who discusses who to vote for and uses his pulpit for political activism effectively should cost that church their non-profit-religous organization status

When churches become political action committees should we then have the right to start regulateing them under election laws?

And what will it take to revoke their non-profit religous organization status?

I think we should seek to regulate and tax any and all churches that are not for religous purposes.

How about this, if a church is in fact a political arm of a political party then shouldn’t there be limits on contributions to that church? HMMMM??

Let me hear where you stand on this and any ideas you have for getting churches out of politics.

[liberaltexas]

1. More succinctly

If churches want to get involved in government. Then lets get government involved in the churches.

Lets govern their actions. It’s what they fear, so lets make that fear a reality until the get back in the business of religon and not politics.

[blondeatlast]

4. THAT is what will make them sit up and take notice.

I've been saying this for years.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[liberaltexas]

5. sorry noob

Sorry, for being a noob. :) Thanks for the welcome.

It's time to organize.

What else can we do to stop these churches?

I think we should try and bring every government regulation possible upon them. Perhaps we should brainstorm a list of potential areas the government could start infringing on churches if churches want to infringe on government?

[Eloriel]

20. What you propose is already the way it works per IRS law

Really. I just wrote a post all about it in another thread. Let me see if I can find it:

Here ya go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1766967&mesg_id=1767177

Churches are incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations -- a term from the IRS regs. Other 501(c)(3)s include charities and "educational" organizations -- United Way, N.O.W., Sierra Club, NARAL, etc. (Now, many of these ALSO have 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations and 501(c)(5) PAC affiliated organizations as well, but tax handling for these is very different. The funds between the 3 types for each organization MUST be kept very separate.)

But all these 501(c)(3)s are specifically prohibited from advocating for or against any candidates or party or they could be forced to become a lobbying arm or a PAC witout the same tax advantages (and PACs are the only type or org which can advocate for or against individual candidates and/or political party(ies).

Since I learned about all this (by serving on a state N.O.W. PAC some years ago), other types have been developed, including the hot new 527s, and I frankly don't know all that much about any of them.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Now obviously, the U.S. is using the tax code to implement one aspect of the separation of church and state. So this is an extremely important thing to look at (as well as other social policy we may be implementing via the tax code) any time any revisions -- especially wholesale sweeping changes like a flat tax -- are being advocated. While it would be nice to make the tax system "more fair," we don't want to get rid of some of its provisions without making sure they're provided for elsewhere.

--

NOW, how do you go about getting the IRS to do its thing? One good way, IMO, is to take your EVIDENCE and contact Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, run by Rev. (Presybterian minister and attorney) Barry Lynn. You've actually probably seen him now and then on some of the cable stations. Nice guy. Very measured, thoughtful, and most of all RIGHT. :-) AU files complaints with the IRS all the time. Here's AU's website: www.au.org

[Eloriel]

25. And here's a telephone number where YOU can report this

from this thread:

Edited: I should give credit to TWriterD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3610452#3610498
4. That's good to hear.
I called the IRS to let them know that we are out here AND paying attention. To report suspected tax fraud, the number is 1-800-829-0433. The number for tax-exempt inquiries is 877-829-5500.

That mega-church from Justice Sunday needs to be on the IRS's hit list as well.

[liberaltexas]

42. I couldn't agree more and will add my complaints as well

I'll be calling this week.

Cheers

[alfredo]

37. HR 235 By Smith of NC will over turn those rules. That will turn

the churches into tax free political organizations.

[Vincardog]

2. self delete dupe

[Vincardog]

3. Get proof of the politicking and go to the IRS

Revoke their tax exempt status. Start with the clergy. They pay no taxes either.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I hadn't heard about the NC church

is there documentation that gives details-for example, was membership in the Democratic Party enough for expulsion from the church? If so, it is not a church but a political organization.

What we need is a cadre of lawyers willing to go after these folks.

[liberaltexas]

7. There's another thread and here's a link

HEre's a t.v. broadcast on it

http://www.spiffarino.completelyfreehosting.com/images/wlos.wmv

Yes we need a bevy of lawyers!

[yurbud]

8. attacking them directly will allow them to be martyrs

Beat them in the arena of ideas and the court of public opinion.

[yurbud]

9. DO hound the media to cover this story though.

[mwb970]

10. I heard KO was covering it tonight. (n/t)

[liberaltexas]

11. I diasgree the point of this country was religous freedom

The thing churches should fear most is government intrusion. But by choosing instead to be political campaigns they forefit their status as churches.

Why should we allow these unchecked PACS.

We should limit contributions to them since they go to supporting candidates.

They shouldnt' be allowed to meet before elections.

Lets have the government shut their doors until after the election.

*laughs*

[yurbud]

16. there is what's right and what works

Would it be legally and morally correct to respond by revoking tax exempt status? YES.

Would that decrease sympathy for the religious right? NO.

[Eloriel]

23. The goal isn't to "decrease sympathy for the religious right," it's to

make them STOP BREAKING THE LAW. You know, enforce the laws that are on the books.

Get it?

The people who have "sympathy for the religious right" ARE the religious right. Who cares what they think? They can damn well THINK they need to follow the damn law or live with the consequences, such as lose their tax exempt status.

[yurbud]

33. We need to win elections to enforce laws, and peel off moderates

from GOP.

Do you think the Bush Justice Department is going to go after these guys?

That will energize the right more than anything else.


We need to hold them up to the public contempt and revulsion they deserve, to whittle Bush's support down to the point that it's ONLY the religious right.

[Eloriel]

21. Oh, bullshit -- attack them on existing LAW, per my post upthread

That'll help EDUCATE and sway public opinion all by itself.

Let's start standing up for what's right, and quit pandering to the lowest common denominator and our irrelevent, paranoid FEARS of getting people mad at us or otherwise responding inappropriately (like claiming martyr status), shall we? YOU'RE NOT A MARTYR IF YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW and if we can't make that case, we don't deserve to win anyway.

[mmonk]

31. My sentiments exactly

In fact its our duty as patriots (the real ones).

[Jawja]

39. Yes, Eloriel.

THE RULE OF LAW. They made that a household phrase - now we need to shove it up their ass.

[yurbud]

40. Go for it. Better to err on the side of action

You've just about persuaded me.

[BeanCounting]

12. Just Heard About This on Ed, DISGUSTING!

Go check out this shit!
http://www.ohiorestorationproject.com/plan.php

[liberaltexas]

13. EXACTLY

This is exactly my point. thank you for the link

All of these invovled out to have their benefits as religous organizations revoked and be regulated in every way.

[me b zola]

14. FOIA for ALL faith based initiative $$ being funneled to churches

That would be a beginning. I am sure that there will be a direct correlation between OUR tax $$ pouring into certain churches, and the churches & organizations that are defying Constitutional law as well as tax code & campaign finance law.

I've been thinking about the topic you have raised, and a possibility is to use similar tactics used by The Southern Poverty Law Center to push back the KKK & neo nazi movements---bankrupt them!

[liberaltexas]

18. The Souther Poverty Law Center

I just looked them up and emailed them about recommendations, ideas, assistance etc.

I know it's not their focus or cup of tea, but worth a shot, right?

Cheers

[Cleita]

15. I wish this could be done, but who has the authority to do it?

With the red government in Washington, I doubt if they would do anything to some of their biggest supporters. So do we sue? Would the ACLU have cause to investigate them? Who would do this?

[liberaltexas]

17. Message 14. and 15.

14, could you explain more. I'm pretty ignorant to how to use the law in this way or about the law and use you referred to.

15, exactly. I'm hopeing that some liberals on this board who are smarter than me can help enlighten us with options, paths to pursue, reasearch we could conduct

[Sgent]

19. I have mixed feelings

If we decide to give churches tax exemption, then I am not against them politicing inside their organization -- to members only.

On the other hand, they should not be allowed to politic to non-members without losing the exemption.

Many great liberals, from MLK to Al Gore, made their names by speaking in front of congregations, I don't have a problem with this.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

24. No, no, advocating for or opposing POLICIES is allowed under IRS

rules, it's individual candidates (or slates of candidates) or parties which MUST NOT BE OPPOSED OR ENDORSED or the church is vulnerable to losing its tax exempt status.

And let's talk about what that means, "tax exempt." It means that contributions TO the church are tax deductible for the contributor AND that the church doesn't have to pay taxes on the money it receives.

The other two 501(c) orgs I discuss upthread are NOT tax deductible for contributors and I don't recall the details on whether or not the orgs have to PAY taxes on their revenues.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberaltexas]

29. I was vague

My apologies for any trouble this caused. But I don't know the tax laws and didn't have the fully formed idea at the time of original post.

That was rather the impetus for this post was to seek those who are more educated in such matters to clarify and help me understand what options are available.

I think there are multiple posts that are very good starting points for further research into seeing what could be done from a legal venue.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberaltexas]

41. Nice, so any church that formally endorses Bush?

So any church leaders who during church endorsed Bush in this last election are essentially putting their church at risk for losing their status?

[me b zola]

26. Black churches & the civil rights movement

Southern Blacks had nowhere where besides the church where they could congregate/meet. Big difference.

[Sgent]

28. No corporation

pays federal taxes on revenues, only on profits. Assuming they don't have profits (which no church I know of does), then they would pay no taxes even if organized as a for-profit corporation.

That being said, church non-profit status brings benefits (as mentioned above) such as deductible contributions from members, reduction in many filing and employment requirements, etc.

[SGBL]

36. So?

"What if Repubs of the 1950s and 1960s called them PACs for being 'political'?"

And so what if they did? Do you really think the movement was centered around taxes? Do you think MLK would have said "Oh gee we get taxed now so I guess it's all over I'm going home"?

This statement suggests a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the civil rights movement. Taxes wouldn't have even slowed it down.

[mmonk]

30. We do need to wave the constitution at them

and threaten them with an end to tax free status.

[mmonk]

32. They should be required

to disclose they are a political organization (PAC).

[SGBL]

34. sigh... It's too bad some people don't get it

I was warning of the religious right before 2000 along with others. No one wanted to listen until after 2004.

Unfortunately due to so many wearing rose glasses the religious right now controls the executive branch. And the executive branch houses the IRS which would have to pull the exemption. Guess what that means? There is not a chance in hell of the IRS removing tax exemption until we get back in power. Any talk of it happening now is akin to talking about how congress needs to start impeaching bush.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.